FF/FG/Green Next Government

James Brown · 06-08-2020 02:31PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't think he was being LITERAL. I took it to mean that it was extremely easy.

I have similar experience myself of such scenarios.

The broader narrative is if you don't want to work you don't have to, welfare will pay you. This feeds into everyone on welfare is just lazy and anyone on the housing list is pretending, with the caveat, 'some are genuine'. So saying you can walk in and get money, no questions asked needs to be challenged. The broader discussion was on how to police the money people get to stop them spending it on drink and drugs. Being unemployed isn't fun. It's also not something government can or should be pointing to to cover their arse.

They gave out pay rises and new jobs prior to their long holidays ffs.

BonnieSituation · 06-08-2020 02:31PM

Elmo wrote: »

AFAIK between 2007 and 2010 the DSW was moving towards banking payments. This stopped and almost everyone was to collect any payments from the Post Office. There are a few exceptions to that rule such as the Back to College payment which was going directly into peoples bank accounts in 2012/2013, not sure if this has changed, but if you continued on this scheme during the summer months you had to collect from your local PO.

You need to tell the local welfare office were you live etc otherwise you wouldn't have a local welfare office.

BTEA still goes into bank accounts. It would be such a swizz to expect a student to go to a post office to collect payments.

ELM327 · 06-08-2020 03:00PM

Bowie wrote: »

I do not believe you one bit. Were they not using the post office back then?

They were, but due to the volumes signing on in late 08 into 2009 (the peak of the recession, I lost my job in Energy pricing) they kept delaying and pushing out signing on days for people.

You can believe or not believe, it's immaterial to me, but it was my reality in 2009

James Brown · 06-08-2020 03:11PM

ELM327 wrote: »

They were, but due to the volumes signing on in late 08 into 2009 (the peak of the recession, I lost my job in Energy pricing) they kept delaying and pushing out signing on days for people.

You can believe or not believe, it's immaterial to me, but it was my reality in 2009

You said not one question. I get you might have been adding for effect but we get an awful lot of anecdotal tosh regarding welfare.

Signing is different. It was weekly then every other week now it's monthly?

Imagine they gave you a list on how to spend that money, money you were due because it's assumed you'd spend it all on drink or drugs? That's what's being suggested here.

ELM327 · 06-08-2020 03:15PM

Bowie wrote: »

You said not one question. I get you might have been adding for effect but we get an awful lot of anecdotal tosh regarding welfare.

Signing is different. It was weekly then every other week now it's monthly?

Imagine they gave you a list on how to spend that money, money you were due because it's assumed you'd spend it all on drink or drugs? That's what's being suggested here.

Entitlement nonsense. I was thankful to receive money at the time after losing my job.

I thought then and I think now, that a card with limited functionality to purchase only specific items would be best.

BonnieSituation · 06-08-2020 03:18PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Entitlement nonsense. I was thankful to receive money at the time after losing my job.

I thought then and I think now, that a card with limited functionality to purchase only specific items would be best.

Would you prefer a State that doesn't help out when you lose your job?

Honestly, you attitude to SW is a bit askew. I'd suggest reflecting on what your issue with it ACTUALLY is

James Brown · 06-08-2020 03:23PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Entitlement nonsense. I was thankful to receive money at the time after losing my job.

I thought then and I think now, that a card with limited functionality to purchase only specific items would be best.

Where do you think the money comes from? Part of taxation is used for people in the situation you found yourself. It's not the governments money to gift, it's yours, you were due it, entitled. It's the rules of society which government govern and over see on our behalf, allegedly.

If you weren't paying tax, fair enough.

ELM327 · 06-08-2020 03:26PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Would you prefer a State that doesn't help out when you lose your job?

Honestly, you attitude to SW is a bit askew. I'd suggest reflecting on what your issue with it ACTUALLY is

I would prefer a state with term limits so it is only "help" and not a lifestyle choice like here and the UK

Bowie wrote: »

Where do you think the money comes from? Part of taxation is used for people in the situation you found yourself. It's not the governments money to gift, it's yours, you were due it, entitled. It's the rules of society which government govern and over see on out behalf, allegedly.

If you weren't paying tax, fair enough.

It's taxpayers money. I was paying tax before, otherwise I would not have gotten JSB (as it is contribution based)

Entitlement culture is rife. I'd much prefer to pay lower tax and not have the safety net, or have it for 6-24 months max at a time

BonnieSituation · 06-08-2020 03:39PM

ELM327 wrote: »

I would prefer a state with term limits so it is only "help" and not a lifestyle choice like here and the UK

It's taxpayers money. I was paying tax before, otherwise I would not have gotten JSB (as it is contribution based)

Entitlement culture is rife. I'd much prefer to pay lower tax and not have the safety net, or have it for 6-24 months max at a time

Honestly, you'd rather no social safety net for the citizenry so you can save a pittance per annum?

I'm gonna bow out now, because this bizarre right-wing crap has no place in a sane world.

KyussB · 06-08-2020 03:45PM

Why don't you move to a country with no social protections then? If you want economic periods of high (very-)long-term-unemployment, to lead to enormous numbers of people without any social supports, and no opportunity for a job - then I'm sure the majority of the country would not be sad to see you go.

James Brown · 06-08-2020 03:46PM

ELM327 wrote: »

I would prefer a state with term limits so it is only "help" and not a lifestyle choice like here and the UK

It's taxpayers money. I was paying tax before, otherwise I would not have gotten JSB (as it is contribution based)

Entitlement culture is rife. I'd much prefer to pay lower tax and not have the safety net, or have it for 6-24 months max at a time

It's a great thing for a society to have available. As in all things people will take advantage but we can amend various elements to tackle that. Looking down on people because they need aid from a source we put in place for that very need is ignorant quite frankly.

Were would Goldman Sachs and others be if welfare wasn't supplying all those rents? Think of the poor corporations...

ELM327 · 06-08-2020 03:49PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Honestly, you'd rather no social safety net for the citizenry so you can save a pittance per annum?

I'm gonna bow out now, because this bizarre right-wing crap has no place in a sane world.

I'd prefer no life long benefits, yes. If that's "bizarre right wing crap" then I see why there are so many lefties cropping up.

ELM327 · 06-08-2020 03:50PM

Bowie wrote: »

It's a great thing for a society to have available. As in all things people will take advantage but we can amend various elements to tackle that. Looking down on people because they need aid from a source we put in place for that very need is ignorant quite frankly.

Were would Goldman Sachs and others be if welfare wasn't supplying all those rents? Think of the poor corporations...

HAP is the worst part of the DSP bill.
Let there be a free market rent and that's it.

KyussB · 06-08-2020 03:59PM

What you've stated isn't targetting life-long benefit recipients, it's targetting all of the long-term and very-long-term unemployed - under the guise of targeting life-long benefit recipients - i.e. the typical right-wing gutter press divide-and-conquer shit, that aims to get peoples focus away from political issues that actually matter, and into meaningless issues that are intended to divide people and keep their attention focused away from people in positions of power/influence.

If people actually gave a toss about lifelong benefit recipients, they'd argue for a Job Guarantee so that they'd have no excuse for remaining unemployed (aimed at e.g. accommodation that we are critically short of, and almost anyone can be trained into work on, if they are to be long-term unemployed). Typically the best configuration for a Job Guarantee, keeps unemployment payments alongside it for those that choose not to enter the JG, though.

Brendan Bendar · 06-08-2020 04:36PM

Bowie wrote: »

Where do you think the money comes from? Part of taxation is used for people in the situation you found yourself. It's not the governments money to gift, it's yours, you were due it, entitled. It's the rules of society which government govern and over see on our behalf, allegedly.

If you weren't paying tax, fair enough.

Lad probably has 80-90 large stuffed under the mattress.

How are ya doin buddy........aaah strugglin’ pal. .... strugglin’. :cool:

RandomViewer · 06-08-2020 07:32PM

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Well i know plenty, there in every town and city in Ireland and its not just a few.

Most of those guys on disability, mostly addiction and mental health issues, couldn't hold down a job no matter what,
if there's work there's people to do it, if there isn't you sign on, current situation will see high unemployment as demand has vanished. Less debt so probably not as bad as 09,

Edgware · 06-08-2020 10:50PM

ELM327 wrote: »

I would prefer a state with term limits so it is only "help" and not a lifestyle choice like here and the UK

It's taxpayers money. I was paying tax before, otherwise I would not have gotten JSB (as it is contribution based)

Entitlement culture is rife. I'd much prefer to pay lower tax and not have the safety net, or have it for 6-24 months max at a time

A safety net rather than a hammock

Brendan Bendar · 07-08-2020 06:02AM

Edgware wrote: »

A safety net rather than a hammock

When one has occasion to visit Central Dublin one can’t but notice the amount of able bodied fully fit young men and women roaming the streets roaring and shouting into mobile phones and misbehaving on public transport.

That lot should be cleared off the streets and put to work.

That area is turning into a wasteland.

Wanderer78 · 07-08-2020 06:06AM

Brendan Bendar wrote:

When one has occasion to visit Central Dublin one canâ€™t but notice the amount of able bodied fully fit young men and women roaming the streets roaring and shouting into mobile phones and misbehaving on public transport.

Maybe we should be helping them with their actual needs

Brendan Bendar · 07-08-2020 06:23AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe we should be helping them with their actual needs

Maybe we are.........

Wanderer78 · 07-08-2020 06:26AM

Brendan Bendar wrote:

Maybe we are.........

Oh I beg to differ there, plenty of people on the dole we have never truly helped, throwing them a fee quid every week isn't exactly the help they need

Brendan Bendar · 07-08-2020 06:37AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh I beg to differ there, plenty of people on the dole we have never truly helped, throwing them a fee quid every week isn't exactly the help they need

Unfortunately it does behove folk at times to help themselves.

You see, it’s a balancing act, in some situations the more help given the more help expected, and it slowly becomes a lifestyle choice.

Moving from ‘scheme’ to ‘scheme’ with never any positive outcome.

Whole area needs a serious shaking up imo, and more robust attempts to get people off the streets and productive.

Edgware · 07-08-2020 07:40AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh I beg to differ there, plenty of people on the dole we have never truly helped, throwing them a fee quid every week isn't exactly the help they need

There will always be some people who because of health factors, family issues who are not capable of taking on full time employment. I know of a few that were taken on to social schemes maybe doing 15 hours a week. We had one man in our sports club who had health issues. But he was taken on and came in 3 hours a day doing stuff like light gardening, helping set out the furniture for meetings, small time decorating. We would all have tea break with him and a bit of a chat. It gave him an extra few euros, a reason to get up every day. Our society should be able to help people like that. Then of course there are a certain
number who just are unemployable. They are perfectly happy doing nothing

Wanderer78 · 07-08-2020 08:03AM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Unfortunately it does behove folk at times to help themselves.

You see, it’s a balancing act, in some situations the more help given the more help expected, and it slowly becomes a lifestyle choice.

Moving from ‘scheme’ to ‘scheme’ with never any positive outcome.

Whole area needs a serious shaking up imo, and more robust attempts to get people off the streets and productive.

Edgware wrote: »

There will always be some people who because of health factors, family issues who are not capable of taking on full time employment. I know of a few that were taken on to social schemes maybe doing 15 hours a week. We had one man in our sports club who had health issues. But he was taken on and came in 3 hours a day doing stuff like light gardening, helping set out the furniture for meetings, small time decorating. We would all have tea break with him and a bit of a chat. It gave him an extra few euros, a reason to get up every day. Our society should be able to help people like that. Then of course there are a certain
number who just are unemployable. They are perfectly happy doing nothing

long term unemployment is very complex, we ve never truly helped those that find themselves in these situations

The_Conductor · 07-08-2020 08:20AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

long term unemployment is very complex, we ve never truly helped those that find themselves in these situations

We've gotten the number of long term unemployed down to 4.17% (before the current mess)- which was considered to be 'full employment' as this core group tend to be unemployable for one reason or another. Hopefully in time the current cohort of unemployed will be encouraged into gainful employment (or education).

Once you get unemployment down to a certain level- you're simply expending resourses with no outcomes- if you continue to try to browbeat a small cohort into employment- it simply doesn't happen.

Wanderer78 · 07-08-2020 08:29AM

The_Conductor wrote: »

We've gotten the number of long term unemployed down to 4.17% (before the current mess)- which was considered to be 'full employment' as this core group tend to be unemployable for one reason or another. Hopefully in time the current cohort of unemployed will be encouraged into gainful employment (or education).

Once you get unemployment down to a certain level- you're simply expending resourses with no outcomes- if you continue to try to browbeat a small cohort into employment- it simply doesn't happen.

the needs of the long term unemployed have never been met, you ll find most have complex undiagnosed issues and disorders

Shefwedfan · 07-08-2020 08:32AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

long term unemployment is very complex, we ve never truly helped those that find themselves in these situations

You have a certain section that are claiming unemployment but provide childcare etc. These people have zero interest in ever coming off unemployment

Wanderer78 · 07-08-2020 08:33AM

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You have a certain section that are claiming unemployment but provide childcare etc. These people have zero interest in ever coming off unemployment

so why do they do this, is it because they have limited options for employment, which may only pay a very limited amount?

The_Conductor · 07-08-2020 08:45AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the needs of the long term unemployed have never been met, you ll find most have complex undiagnosed issues and disorders

Certainly- in pretty much the same way that its thought that the majority of long term homeless people have complex mental health, psychiatric and addiction issues. We've consistently been treating the symptoms- homelessness or unemployment- rather than actually catering for the actual needs of these people- which must include resources to deal with mental health issues, addiction and other issues.

This is why a little over 4.1% is seen as 'full-employment' as the cohort in this 4.1% have issues which preclude them being employed (by normal employers in normal jobs).

Beating a drum about unemployment- or homelessness- that refuses to acknowledge the extremely complex needs of the majority of the actual homeless- or the cohort of unemployed and their specific needs (which very often is nothing whatsoever that additional training courses or forcing them to attend pointless interviews will solve)- is completely and utterly myopic- and indeed- plays wholly into the hands of the industries who have sprung up to push for the rights of the unemployed or the homeless. Try persuading Threshold to push for mental health resources for the homeless- they're not not interested- it doesn't fit their agenda.

This pigeon holing of people- has had horrific consequences for a great many people- who genuinely need help- just not the help that the Media, Threshold and other organisations have in mind for them............

Shefwedfan · 07-08-2020 08:55AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so why do they do this, is it because they have limited options for employment, which may only pay a very limited amount?

Not really.

A child minder could get up to 1200 per month cash in hand for minding 2 kids. No tax. Then get unemployment plus all the "perks" with that. More kids, more money

In reality the child minder in most cases ends up with more than the person paying her to mind her children.

FF/FG/Green Next Government

Comments